I feel a great sympathy and respect for your topic and intentions, but I do not agree with some of your conclusions. You propose to replace "yes, but" by "yes, and". For me this is even worse than "yes, but". Why don't you propose a straight NO? In what concerns oppression is there any real substitute for NO? And if, on the contrary, I respect you, is there a more respectful way to say that I disagree then being clear about my disagreement? You say that you value listening, but then you provided a lot of ("paternalistic") "methods" to engage people in talking, isn't it? The idea of asking a group to talk in turns may be very well intentioned, but it is often a violence (an opression) that the facilitator is puting upon the people that just want to listen - in some situations that can close the space more than anything else. And it is not Open Space, as far as I see OST. It belongs to more traditional "facilitation" methods - in OST the OST "foundations" are there and the facilitator must be "fully present, but almost invisible". Preciselly in OST there is no need to "force people to talk", as there is the law of two feet (that can be enforced frequently if there is a need to). The law is not a form of cowardry: it is frequently the best way for opressed people to cope with a certain situation - at least without being killed before (all opression is a violence - that can become a GREAT VIOLENCE when confronted - one must know when to confronte violence and when to come out). Please believe I have the utmost respect for a group that had the courage to confront with violence and have no other way to express my respect then by saying what I disagree with. Think about it. Listen, I mean -- ArturSilva
|